I made no statement implying that Pelosi was obligated to advise and consent, nor that she has any legal liability. In fact, I have clearly said the exact opposite.

All I have done is called her out for her hypocrisy about claiming that she knew nothing (recent comments), when in fact she did. She has now admitted that indeed, despite her earlier lies, she knew about water boarding, and its extent, starting in 2003.

I tried to obfuscate nothing – it is you who are tying to claim I said what I did not.

Liar.

Bush officials appear to have violated very serious laws. Pelosi appears not to have violated anything.

But go ahead and blast away as much as you want. I hope it pisses off the Dems enough to defy Obama and launch serious under-oath investigations.

Right

Which is why I have consistently said there needs to be a criminal investigation. Under oath, lies have real consequences.

I just hope she and Cheney get their wish. Investigate them all and let god sort it out.

Actually, it's even worse than that. If you're referring to the request that came from Dick Cheney's office to waterboard a former official of Saddam Hussein's government, that happened after the war started. The official wasn't actually waterboarded because Charles Duelfer (the weapons inspector at the time, looking for the imaginary WMDs) refused to do it. But Cheney was requesting that an Iraqi official who was already cooperating with interrogators be tortured to make him falsely confess to a connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein's regime to justify an invasion that had already happened.

One of the reporters did ask her that. She said she welcomed an investigation.

And she has said, clearly, that 'she was never told that water-boarding was used'. She has since tried to change the narrative to focus on 2002. And I guess it if she did know later, then lied about that, it makes it OK to you.

Partisan.

I don't know how to make my position clearer. Whoever is lying should pay for those lies. That position has never changed.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You were calling Pelosi a liar and included a link to a later date than when she was talking about yesterday.

If that's partisan, fine.

I don't know how to make my position clearer. Whoever is lying should pay for those lies. That position has never changed.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You were calling Pelosi a liar and included a link to a later date than when she was talking about yesterday.

If that's partisan, fine.

I couldn't agree more, pissed off is putting it mildly.

Kit Bond was on morning Joe this AM actually saying he couldn't believe the CIA would lie to the congress..

I guess he doesn't remember Iran-Contra, or Laos, or ……….

Truth will out

Sorry, but you, too, are showing your partisanship, and hypocrisy by trying to present yourself as 'non-partisan'. Bullshit.

First, you called me out for 'quoting' someone, when all I did was provide a link. Now you conveniently ignore that is what I replied to, and try to shift to focus.

So, to that point, I am not the law, but private citizen explressing my opinikon. Sorry it offends you so. well, that was a lie. I care not a whit that you choose to be offended.

I certainly can, and do, form opinions based upon the preponderance of the facts that I read, and from multiple sources. I also do not believe for one second if she was not a (D) that her ever-changing stories, accounts, obfuscations, and flat-out lies of what she knew, and when she knew it, would be treated with the amazing deference the you and the rest of the Left now want to show her. You among others would be leading the call to 'get to the bottom of this'.

BTW – at no point have I said one word that she should be dragged in front of any silly 'truth commission', or that she should be prosecuted, or any of that crap. I just think, strongly, that she and others in Congress are the ones playing partisan politics with a very serious issue, trying to deny their own knowledge for political reasons, and putting their careers ahead of the truth.

The bottom line is also a tangent, that I am sick to death of hearing how corrupt and duplicitous the Right and Republicans are, and how pure of heart and honest the Left and Democrats are, when all the evidence clearing shows they are the exact same lying, self-serving, deceitful, corrupt, power-hungry piece-of-shits.

My beef is with you.
“The single, sole, solitary reason YOU all are pretending to believe hew is due to one letter – (D). “

Our past discussions have demonstrated you have a great respect for the rule of law. Show it now. If she lied, nail her. I agree entirely.

But what if she's telling the truth? Have you honestly considered what it means if the CIA helped hide the truth?

You've decided along partisan lines before evidence has been submitted. Just about everybody in this thread has done the same thing.

You remember Watergate? Remember how EVERYBODY just knew that no sitting President would spy on another party that he was already thrashing in the polls?

It's only through the rule of law we find out the truth.

As I said in some other comment, “the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

I assume your flame is intended for me.

I merely pointed out a chronology that you failed to note. Pelosi talks about a Feb 2002 meeting, and admits an aid notified her later. I'm the last person to defend that women, but the point I'm making is that none of the other congressmen in that same briefing have come forth to call her a liar. Why? If they do, nail her, but if she's telling the truth, ten the CIA took an active part in covering up for the administration.

I don't know what happened, but you don't either. For what it's worth, I believe Cheney ordered torture to try to get someone to confess to an al-Qa'da link. There's enough crap flying around this situation to splatter everybody.

I merely assert that politics have to be removed from this examination or partisan BS will keep the truth from coming out. My only dog in this fight is justice.

You best realize there's a ton of people who don't want the truth to be known, and the only way to avoid their mis-directions is to believe no one not under oath. The rule of law only works when you don't assume who someone is means they are beyond reproach. If you don't, you make the argument that a Vice President beyond reproach with the same brush. Truth will out.

“Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”

O yeah, another “unidentified aid who had no legal right to know”?

Another partisan hack?

Another unpatritoc retired military, whow served under another unpatritoc, partisan, know-nothing, retired military….General Colin Powell?

Another one who has “caught the party line in their bogus account.”

Yes, sure…

Just kep telling yourself that.

You quote an unidentified aid who had no legal right to know, much less pass on, secret briefing details. I guess that doesn't ring your cynic's fire bell?

Pelosi was talking about 2002, not 2003.

Besides, check out fellow briefed Bob Graham. He caught the party line in their bogus account.

“When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held,” Graham recalled. “And they contacted me and gave me four dates — two in April '02 and two in September '02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002.”

As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had “no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed.” He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.

“What struck me…was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members,” he said. “As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called “covert action,” where the president…only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee…. Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn't brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation.”

The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.